DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JRE
Docket No. 08566-07
21 November 2008
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the
United States Code, section 1552.
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 20 November 2008. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted
of your application, together with all material submitted in
Support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes,
regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the
advisory opinion furnished by Director, Secretary of the Navy
Council of Review Boards dated 22 September 2008, a copy of
which is attached.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice. In this connection, the Board substantially
concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion.
Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon
request.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such
that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have
the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and
material evidence or other matter not previously considered by
the Board. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that
a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official
naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or injustice.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
SECRETARY OF THE NAVY COUNCIL OF REVIEW BOARDS
720 KENNON STREET SE STE 309
WASHINGTON NAVY YARD DC 20374-5023 INRERLYRERER 0
5220
CORB: 002
22 Sep 08
From: Director, Secretary of Navy Council of Review Boards
To: Executive Director, Board for Corrections of Naval
Records
Subj: ENDATIONS IN THE CASE
Ref: (a) Your ltr JRE: jdh Docket No. 8566-07
(b) SECNAVINST 1850.45
1. Documents contained in Ref (a) were reviewed in
accordance with Ref (b).
2. After careful consideration, I have determined that had
petitioner's case file been referred to the Department of
the Navy (DON) Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), it is
likely that the PEB would have determined that the
petitioner was Fit for Continued Naval Service. This
conclusion is based on the available documentary evidence
contemporary with petitioner’s active service which
includes:
a. A 01 November 2006 form, “RETURN OF A PATIENT TO
MEDICALLY UNRESTRICTED DUTY FROM LIMITED DUTY,” after two
periods of Limited Duty for occupational therapy to treat
the following:
i. S/P R LOWER EXTREMITY BLAST INJURY WITH SURAL
NERVE PALSY
ii. R CALF WEAKNESS, PAIN
=
The record indicated that “Pt able to meet personal goals
for physical fitness, stamina, etc. without discomfort”
though he feels “he couldn’t meet USMC Standards. Wishes
to be placed on Full duty to be able to EFAS 20 Jan 07."
b. A 14 November 2006 document that would appear to
represent a DVA Psychiatric claim evaluation conducted at
Camp Lejeune, NC which indicated that despite “some
problems dealing with the public,” “He generally is able to
do his military job fairly well.”
Subj: REQUEST FOR COMMENT
S AND RE
OF 4 —
ae hag Lech AL
ee
COMMENDATIONS IN THE CASE
c. DVA records indicating that petitioner’s Right Calf
Weakness was mild with a residual strength rating of 4/5;
this had constituted the primarily impairing condition for
which he had been placed on Limited Duty.
3. While it is clear that petitioner lacked confidence in
his ability to fulfill all USMC standards, and may have
remained not completely fit for the more labor intensive
aspects of FULL duty including deployability, he did
satisfy the DON PEB standard of basic fitness for continued
Naval Service. Hence, the available evidence appears
inadequate to warrant recommending the requested
retrospective change in petitioner’s discharge.
Ab, tevM.
MARK D. FRANKLIN
AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD 2014 01046
The Board unanimously agreed the record referenced above supported a rating of 10% for the back condition for reduced ROM of 80 degrees coded 5243 (disc syndrome) on examinations proximate to separation. The Board found no other appropriate codes for considerationfor the back condition.After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), the Board recommends a disability rating of 10% for the back condition.In summary the Board recommends a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10491-07
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 JRE Docket No. 10491-07 21 November 2008 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: FORMER
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03513-00
The Petitioner was discharged from the U.S. Navy on 27 January 1998 after Petitioner was discharged he was medically evaluated and his case was reviewed by the Physical Evaluation Board. 17 years of active duty service. Subj: REQUEST OF FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE CASE 9.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04518-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 September 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. (a) which requested comments and a recommendation regarding Petitioner's request for correction of his On 4 June 1993, the Petitioner was discharged and placed on records. placed on the TDRL with a disability rating...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02561-98
The fact that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) granted you service connection for post traumatic stress disorder in 1997, effective from 23 August 1994, was not considered probative of error or injustice in your naval record. prior to your discharge were related to a personality disorder, which is a condition not covered by the military disability evaluation system, rather than a physical disability. It appears likely that the diagnosis made with all information would be PTSD and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05542-00
A’three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 March 2001. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. DC 203746023 NAVY YARD REPLY REFER TO 00-1 9 IN 542 0 Ser: 24 Ott 200 0 From: To: Subj: Ref: Director, Executive Director, Naval Council of Personnel...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00130-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 October 2008. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. Petitioner’s DD FORM 149, [see Ref (a)] appears to request the opportunity to appeal the 28 June 2007 IPEB finding which continued petitioner’s rating of 30% under VASRD Code...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 05906-97
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 May 1999. 901 M STREET SE WASHINGTON, DC 20374-5023 IN REPLY REFER TO 5420 Ser: 23 Mar 99 99-029 Director, Chairman, Naval Council of Personnel Boards Board for Correction of Naval Records COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION IN THE CASE OF FORMER (a) BCNR ltr JRE DN: (b) SECNAVINST (c) CMDR 1850.4C gist, dated 7 Apr 98 5906-97 dated 30 Jun...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01677
No other conditions were submitted by the MEB.The PEBadjudicated “left ankle trimalleolar fracture”as unfitting, rated 20%.The CI made no appeals, and was medically separated. The Board’s role is confined to the review of medical records and all evidence at hand to assess the fairness of PEB rating determinations, compared to Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards, based on severity at the time of separation. All members agreed that the C&P examination...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05898-00
(BUMED) that you It was the Naval In addition, the Board noted that as you did not have a remaining reserve obligation The Board noted that a determination of your fitness for duty and entitlement to disability benefits administered by the Department of the Navy is under the cognizance of Disability Evaluation System (DES), rather than the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery. case if the PEB had evaluated this member, she would have been found fit for continued active duty service. from active...